Opinion
No. SC12–1497.
2012-10-26
Henry MYLES, Petitioner(s) v. Kenneth S. TUCKER, etc., Respondent(s).
Because the Court has determined that relief is not authorized, this case is hereby dismissed. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004). Any motions or other requests for relief are also denied.
The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against petitioner. See generallyFla. R.App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court's Motion).
Since 1988, Henry Myles has filed numerous extraordinary writ cases with this Court involving the conviction and the sentencing order entered in circuit court case number 1982–4–CF–J–16 by the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Putnam County, Florida. See Myles v. Smith, Clerk, No. SC09–1221 (Fla. Sep. 11, 2009) (mandamus petition transferred to the circuit court); Myles v. McNeil, 18 So.3d 1038 (Fla.2009) (habeas corpus petition dismissed) (No. SC09–933); Myles v. State, 12 So.3d 220 (Fla.2009) (mandamus petition administratively dismissed) (No. SC09–935); Myles v. State, 1 So.3d 172 (Fla.2009) (mandamus petition dismissed) (No. SC08–2118); Myles v. McNeil, 999 So.2d 645 (Fla.2008) (habeas corpus petition dismissed) (No. SC08–2080); Myles v. State, 948 So.2d 759 (Fla.2006) (habeas corpus petition dismissed) (No. SC06–1039); Myles v. State, 939 So.2d 1059 (Fla.2006) (mandamus petition dismissed) (No. SC06–585); Myles v. State, No. SC05–1678 (Fla. Dec. 23, 2005) (mandamus petition transferred); Myles v. State, No. SC05–1603 (Fla. Sep. 27, 2005) (habeas corpus petition transferred); Myles v. State, 902 So.2d 791 (Fla.2005) (habeas corpus petition dismissed) (No. SC05–425); Myles v. Peacock, Assistant Warden, No. SC04–2491 (Fla. Apr. 21, 2005) (mandamus petition transferred); Myles v. State, No. SC05–89 (Fla. Mar. 3, 2005) (mandamus petition transferred); Myles v. The Florida Bar, 898 So.2d 80 (Fla.2005) (mandamus petition denied) (No. SC04–1764); Myles v. State, 892 So.2d 1013 (Fla.2004) (habeas corpus petition voluntarily dismissed) (No. SC04–934); Myles v. State, 879 So.2d 623 (Fla.2004) (habeas corpus petition voluntarily dismissed) (No. SC04–798); Myles v. State, 879 So.2d 623 (Fla.2004) (mandamus petition voluntarily dismissed) (No. SC03–2371); Myles v. State, No. SC03–1497 (Fla. Sep. 9, 2003) (mandamus petition transferred); Myles v. State, 845 So.2d 891 (Fla.2003) (mandamus petition voluntarily dismissed) (No. SC03–96); Myles v. State, 837 So.2d 411 (Fla.2003) (mandamus petition voluntarily dismissed) (No. SC02–2662); Myles v. State, 805 So.2d 808 (Fla.2001) (habeas corpus petition denied) (No. SC01–1148); Myles v. State, 676 So.2d 413 (Fla.1996) (habeas corpus petition denied) (No. 87,929); Myles v. Dugger, 537 So.2d 569 (Fla.1988) (habeas corpus petition denied) (No. 73,083).
It appearing that the petitioner has abused the judicial process by filing numerous pro se petitions with this Court that are either meritless or not appropriate for this Court's review, the Court now takes action. Therefore, Henry Myles is hereby directed to show cause on or before Novermber 15, 2012, why he should not be barred from filing any future pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief related to his criminal case (No.1982–4–CF–J–16), unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See, e.g., James v. Tucker, 75 So.3d 231 (Fla.2011); Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So.3d 1080 (Fla.2011); Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221 (Fla.2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008). The petitioner's response should also show cause why the Court should not determine that the petition filed in this case is a frivolous pleading filed by a state prisoner. See§ 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2011).